User talk:Buidhe/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Buidhe. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello Buidhe. A moratorium against requested moves of 18 months has been proposed at Talk:Allahabad. The length seems excessive to me, but WP:MORATORIUM does not have any specific guidelines about the length of moratoria. Do you have any guidance on how to decide the length of an RM moratorium? Rublov (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Rublov I don't think that there's one accepted length for moratoria. One year is typical, imposed for instance at Czech Republic and Kyiv, so I don't think 18 months is beyond the pale. (t · c) buidhe 15:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, I hope you're well? I've got 2013 FA Cup Final running at FAC and I was hoping you'd be able to take a look and give me an image review? I realise you've done a lot of these for me lately, for which I'm very thankful, and that this request is thus somewhat cheeky, so feel free to pass it over! All the best. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

No worries. Seriously don't hesitate to ask. I mean the worst thing that happens is I'm busy and don't get around to it :) You do a ton of reviewing so you should get that back in some way! (t · c) buidhe 12:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pushbacks in Greece, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Balaclava.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, I came across this article which has just been nominated for DYK. I am slightly skeptical of some of the claims ("saved" is used 4 times) and the sourcing seems slightly dubious quality. It isn't really my area, and I wondered if you might be able to take a quite look? Many thanks. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Border Violence Monitoring Network at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SL93 (talk) 23:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, it seems you are our local Theresienstadt expert. I'm (slowly) trying to write an article about Emil Utitz, a philosopher who was head of the Theresienstadt library and later wrote a book about the camp. The draft is currently in my sandbox. I was wondering whether you have come across Utitz and have any sources to share; in particular, have you seen any free images? There is a still of Utitz giving a talk from Theresienstadt (1944 film), but I find the copyright status of that confusing. Kurt Gerron was killed in Auschwitz in 1944, but Ivan Frič [de; fr] only died in 2001. And I have no idea whether that even matters... —Kusma (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Kusma, Yes, the 1944 film is still in copyright. According to German law at least, films are usually considered a collective work where everyone who worked on the film has part of the copyright, and the copyright expires 70 years after the last surviving author. I believe it is the same in Czechia. However, any Czechoslovak-origin photographs published (as opposed to created) before 1946 and without a stated author are public domain (you can use the template PD-Czechoslovakia-anon on Commons). There are various serials from this era posted online by Czech and Slovak libraries, and in fact I've uploaded a bunch of photographs this way, but it isn't easy to search for images of a specific person. I don't have any free images of Utitz specifically. (t · c) buidhe 02:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I guess the Theresienstadt Papers haven't been "published" until 2002 either, so the photos from there (like [1]) aren't free either. I'll probably have to claim fair use on something. —Kusma (talk) 08:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe that's correct, which is why fair use uploads are allowed. (t · c) buidhe 14:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Article is done for the moment (still missing a proper discussion of his works, but good enough for mainspace): Emil Utitz. Should you come across his name in any Theresienstadt research you do, please let me know (or add to the article). Thanks again for your comments on the image copyright situation. —Kusma (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi there Buidhe, hope you're doing well. Would you mind taking a look at this merger? The discussion has been up for almost two weeks now, and I think it needs a closure. Sincerely, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

On 20 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fedotova and Others v. Russia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the 2021 case Fedotova and Others v. Russia, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously ruled that lack of legal recognition for same-sex couples violated human rights? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fedotova and Others v. Russia. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Fedotova and Others v. Russia), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Pushbacks in Greece at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, You added a 'Peacock'-template to the page New Pride Flag. I agree with you; the text was too 'promotional', although there was no commercial aspect to it, and words were used that were not in the sources provided. I tried to clean it up, because I do think it is a relevant subject for Wikipedia; this alternative 'rainbow flag' is used to include more marginalized groups and acknowledge the racism that still exists in the LHBT movements. Would you take a look to see if the template can be removed? Thank you, Laurier (talk) 06:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Laurier I agree your changes are a considerable improvement to the article, but I'm not sure it's notable in the wikipedia sense. The sources cited either seem to be primary sources or just mention the flag, indicating that WP:GNG is not met. Other pride flag variations are already covered in Rainbow flag (LGBT) so the content could be merged there. (t · c) buidhe 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree it could be a good idea to just integrate (most of) the text and the image on the page Rainbow flag (LGBT). Laurier (talk) 11:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

On 22 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bayev and Others v. Russia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the 2017 case Bayev and Others v. Russia, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Russian laws against "promotion of homosexuality" violate freedom of speech? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bayev and Others v. Russia. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Bayev and Others v. Russia), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

On 23 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Border Violence Monitoring Network, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 2020, Border Violence Monitoring Network published the Black Book of Pushbacks documenting human rights violations against 12,654 migrants traveling on the Balkan route? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Border Violence Monitoring Network. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Border Violence Monitoring Network), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Editor Buidhe did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI when they closed the move request at [2] because they were involved in several other disputes between me and other participants just prior to the Move Request, which me doubtful that they are truly capable to close it impartially and determining objectively the consensus, not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions. Buidhe has ignored completely Wikipedia's WP:NEUTRAL guidelines, ignored what the majority of the sources do say, and has failed to comply with Wikipedia's applicable policies and naming conventions. Administrator EdJohnston suggested that I seek admin closure and that's what I want to do. Buidhe, please revert your closure of the RfC and let an admin do that. Thank you. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi SilentResident, I don't consider myself involved because I have not substantially edited in the topic area of Aegean dispute. The move had high participation and its time period had expired. Move requests are not required to be closed by admins and in fact I have more experience with move closures than many admins do. (t · c) buidhe 20:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

You were involved in not just one but TWO disputes, one at Killing of Zak Kostopoulos and one at Pushbacks in Greece. The latter one is still ongoing between you and some of the MR voters including me. So no thank you. I prefer listen to EdJohnston's and request closure by an univolved admin. Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

What does that have to do with this move request? If editors could not close moves involving any editors that they interacted with, it would be difficult to close any move requests at all! (t · c) buidhe 20:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@SR, I am not against an admin making the closure, but it is very obvious that "No consensus, not moved" will be the result no matter who makes the closure. After some 10 years on Wikipedia you should know that nobody would close such a controversial and balanced discussion with sth other than "no consensus". And "no consensus" in this case means "not moved". Feel free to suggest another name if the current one concerns you so much - of course, that assuming that your issue is the double name thing rather than a desire to see the article of a rock contested between Greek and Turkish silly nationalists have the Greek name only. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Buidhe, your judgement is not impartial. First you were involved in unresolved disputes against me and now, on top of that, you came and closed the MR I initiated, even though it is about a sensitive topic and where you ignored the WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NPOV, the naming guidelines and arguments of editors. I ask that you revert your closure of the RM right away and let someone else do it. Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: if the Greek name was really my concern here, then I wouldn't wait 13 whole years and initiate the MR only after I went to the List of Disputes Territories and notice Imia/Kardak being the *only* article here to not follow the same naming guidelines as all the other articles in that Topic Area do. Maybe you are fine with double standards, i.e support single names for Kosovo places and double names for Aegean places but I am not. I prefer that the NPOV rules, the common practices and rationale are respected, as proven recently at Albanians in Greece: Requested Move 18 September 2021] where you also participated in the discussion and where I fully supported Move Request per WP:CONSISTENCY (this article was the only one to not be titled in line with the other articles in the Albanian Diaspora Topic Area), on the condition that the WP:NEUTRAL concerns are addressed. I hope you don't have any difficulties remembering my firm stance on such matters in the recent past, or troubles understanding what WP:CONSISTENCY is? And Buidhe, I hope you understand that there is nothing personal here against you, the RM closure has to be done by someone not involved in any disputes in the same topic area. Wish you the best, and a good day. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 02:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect but your comments are rather personal. And it looks remarkedly much on fighting a closure you do not like. The Banner talk 13:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

On 25 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Azerbaijan in the Council of Europe, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Azerbaijan has been a member of the Council of Europe, an organization promoting human rights, for more than twenty years, despite holding political prisoners and rigging elections? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Azerbaijan in the Council of Europe. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Azerbaijan in the Council of Europe), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, it looks to me like something went wrong with the New Pride Flag merger discussion that you initiated, as the "Discuss" does not link to any merger discussion or proposal and the Rainbow flag (LGBT) article is not tagged. The best way to launch these mergers is to use Twinkle (which I’m sure you have) by the way. JBchrch talk 13:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I did not realize Twinkle was helpful for mergers! I'll keep that in mind in future. (t · c) buidhe 21:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, some time ago you commented on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of the Granicus/archive1. I didn't have to time to respond before the discussion there closed and took a break from Wikipedia afterwards, so I'm responding on your talk page now. I had some questions and comments. 1) I will eventually submit the article for WP:GAN or WP:MILHIST/ACR. 2) Didn't know about the dodgyness of Cambridge Scholars Publishing, but judging from what I find on him Krystzof Nawotka is legit. 3) Thank you for fixing the citations. 4) That paragraph was the lead paragraph of that section and intended as a summary of the subsections below, but I understand the requirement and have made the required changes. 5) I don't think the sole link to Turkey is overlinking because it allows readers to inform themselves on the modern country where the ancient battle took place. As for the link to archers, it linked specifically to the subsection on archers in the article on the ancient Macedonian army. I'll take care to review the article again for possible overlinking before I submit it for another good article or featured article nomination. 6) I will take another look at the lead paragraph before a new nomination. --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

(re: the ANI thread) I like to use {{uw-copying}} for users who are copying within Wikipedia without attribution and {{uw-translation}} for unattributed translation, though only the first one is included in Twinkle by default. DanCherek (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe. You did the image review for a Featured Article I nominated (and passed) a while back for a play-by-mail game. (Thanks again.) I don't know many image experts. Could you advise if this image for a different play-by-mail game appears to meet the criteria for PD-text? I would greatly appreciate it! --Airborne84 (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe so. (t · c) buidhe 03:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Greatly appreciated! --Airborne84 (talk) 11:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I think the new article, which became 'Rise of Christianity in Roman Empire', is now ready for you to look at and critique. Take what time you can. I know without asking that you will be fair and thorough. I value your input. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 I'm willing to take a look but where is it? Wikipedia search tool can't find it. (t · c) buidhe 18:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

It's still sitting in my sandbox where you first saw it: [[3]]. Should it be moved? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 It would be easier to load if you took the content intended for this article and moved it to a separate page, whether in user, draft, or article space. You have a lot of stuff in your sandbox! Another issue for me is that it doesn't really seem to be about "rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire". If so, you would expect it to take a chronological approach and focus on demographics, establishment of church institutions, missionaries to unchurched areas, etc. Even in the part of your article that do touch on this issue seem to focus on "how" without really touching on "what" (perhaps because it's too disputed)? It seems that the topic you are trying to write about might be "theories for the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire" or "causes of the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire" (compare: causes of the Armenian genocide). But take that with a grain of salt because it could be there is not so much undisputed "what" to cover. (t · c) buidhe 20:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, it's here: [4] I attempted to adjust the title so it 's really awkward right now. It isn't a survey of theories, tho it mentions them, and it isn't a survey of demographics though it's also mentioned. It's a survey of attractiveness, pro and con, and whether or not that is an explanation for its rapid growth. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Continued at Draft talk:Rise of Christianity in Roman Empire from its attractive appeal (t · c) buidhe 20:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Okay! I can't get the copyright vio detector to run on it - just in case I missed anything!!!! Can you? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Hey! I think you told me once I could publish an article without it having to go through a review and acceptance like a first article, But I can't remember. What should I do? Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

      Jenhawk777 See the pictures at Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#How_to_move_a_page. Once you get to the move dialog all you have to do is click where it says "Draft" and change to "Article". (t · c) buidhe 03:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

      • Bless you! Thank you. Sorry for the delayed response. RL interfered. Appreciate your help! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• • • • • Just taking the opportunity to thank you one more time. The article is now published and benefitted from your input. I am also now writing off site and just transferring!! Really, I had no idea a draft was not seen differently from an end product - now I know! I am grateful for your help. Thanx again, Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

On 30 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tuberculosis elimination, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that addressing poverty is an important factor in achieving tuberculosis elimination? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tuberculosis elimination. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Tuberculosis elimination), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

You have closed Talk:Mirror Go#Requested move 11 October 2021 as "no consensus" but also stated "the majority of participants in this discussion favor the current title" given the page was at the proposed title from its creation in 2006 up until a few hours before the RM started shouldn't it be returned if its "no consensus" per WP:RMNOMIN especially given the similar RM at Talk:Four go houses#Requested move 11 October 2021 that proposed moving from the longstanding title was also "no consensus". I have no strong opinion either way but I'm just pointing out that if it was simply "no consensus" rather than a rough consensus to retain the upper case it should be reverted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. The reason I consider it "no consensus" is that consensus is not a matter of vote-counting and different rules could apply depending on which editor you ask. The issue of G/go capitalization is being discussed centrally with a proposal of standardization. I would not move it back until those discussions have wrapped up, at which point if there is no consensus to standardize it should be moved back to its previous title. (t · c) buidhe 21:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Crouch, Swale. On purely procedural grounds, I think a finding of "No consensus" should have resulted in moving the article back to the stable title, per WP:TITLECHANGES. (Though it's looking like the Go capitalization RfC may moot this.) Colin M (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Funny i came here to post about something unrelated, but I am actually a very experienced Go player and reader of Go books, etc. And I went to check the RM. It should stay capitalized, FYI. Yeah, chess is not capitalized, but Go is, in universal/widespread usage. I will go look for the RfC just mentioned.--Doncram (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey Buidhe,

I'm thinking the Persecution of Armenians, Assyrians and Greek in early 20th century Turkey deserves its own article. Thoughts? François Robere (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The combination is already discussed at late Ottoman genocides. (t · c) buidhe 12:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! François Robere (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I got mediawiki message, and will plan to attend the meeting (7:30 pm MDT). I assume you are behind it, making it happen, thank you for doing that! By the way, there was a goal I believe i expressed to you and/or to the first meeting this year, which was to bring every Colorado county up to 50 percent coverage, in terms of there being articles, of National Register of Historic Places-listed places. I was originally hoping to get help working towards that, but have plugged along mostly by myself, no problem. And, by the way, the goal has pretty much been met: see this current map graphic of NRHP article percentage by county, U.S.-wide, and note that Colorado is now in the red shades, has no counties in the blue shades. (Well, at least if you don't zoom in on Denver.) Whereas, say, this version as of March 2020 had a bunch of blue counties. The big tabulation of all counties' stats in Colorado and everywhere else is at wp:NRHPPROGRESS. I dunno if it could be helpful for you to know this recent accomplishment was a result of the WikiProject Colorado meetings, which motivated me to work along on this! Cheers, --Doncram (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Doncram sorry I do not have anything to do with this. (t · c) buidhe 02:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh?! Hmm, I don't see it mentioned at wt:Colorado, either. I don't see how to ascertain who is initiating this. The message to my Talk page, anyhow, is: "Brief online meeting of WikiProject Colorado / What's up with Wikipedia and WikiProjectColorado? Join us for a brief online meeting at 7:30 PM MDT Tuesday evening, November 9, 2021 at https://meet.google.com/wyz-dfek-fdp / If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)" This had a hidden comment: "Message sent by User:Nnadigoodluck@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Meetup/Colorado/Invitation_list&oldid=1053264481".

Given you didn't organize this, my guess switches to the not-from-Colorado-but-helpful-and-nice participant in the first meeting early this year that you did organize, whose name I don't recall right now. Perhaps that was the meeting May 12, 2021 07:30 PM or maybe that was the second meeting date (which i missed). Anyhow, I hope you will join the meeting next Tuesday, and I am guessing you did in fact have to do with this, in terms of re-establishing activity in the WikiProject, leading to someone somewhere somehow, or perhaps a bot, trying to continue to stir it along. Weird they didn't reach you personally, I guess, but still I hope you and I and others can still get together. Cheers, --Doncram (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I have never organized or attended any meetings related to WikiProject Colorado. I only attended one meeting in my entire editing career and that was Wikimedia NYC. I also never participated in WikiProject Colorado at all, nor do I edit articles related to Colorado. Do you have me confused with someone else? Doncram (t · c) buidhe 03:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

D'oh! Guilty as charged. Now I see that it was User:Buaidh. I didn't know that there were two of you! (or something like that). Thanks for clarifying. --Doncram (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, sorry to bother you again but I've just seen the very unfortunate tag for the above-mentioned article at WP:DYK and wondered if you might be able to take a look over the article. The article seems fine to me, but I'm a little concerned by the appropriateness of the "Jewish scientists" comment. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 47, September – October 2021

• On-wiki Wikipedia Library notification rolling out
• Search tool deployed
• New My Library design improvements

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Meeting of the Jewish Council in Theresienstadt film (1944).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, when you get a chance, can you take a look at this[5], declare your opinion and if it's in line with the rest of us, close it? Thanks Buidhe. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

PS - If you are not too busy Buidhe. I can ask elsewhere, let me know - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, thanks for deleting the Joyce photos. It was a shame to see some of the pictures that have been there for years go. The 1915 Joyce is particularly frustrating, as I could at least track that the photographer Alexander Ehrenzweig-Klantitza was active in Zürich between 1914-1927, but no notification of death. But I think I see the rationale and get the basic rule.. If its been orphaned, don't use on Wikipedia. It makes sense and is easy to follow.

After the photos were removed I started doing the research on orphan works. There's a lot of contradictory information. It seems to imply that orphan works before 1923 work according to different rules than ones afterwards. But then I saw there was some type of issue with copyright protection by the estate of Pound about a picture of him and his mother from 1898, though I couldn't track the details. It makes sense, this article by Spoo indirectly addresses how the estate of modernist authors try to maintain both control on the author's image and any possible royalties. But is there a place in Wikipedia or Wikimedia commons that discusses this issue or addresses the nuances or particular solutions to this problem? Much of the knowledge seems implicit. Regardless, thank you very much! Appreciatively, Wtfiv (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Wtfiv Sorry, but specific rules for orphan works are above my level of knowledge. I just rely on the Hirtle chart to evaluate copyright status. (t · c) buidhe 18:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate you pointing me in the right direction in terms of evaluation. It's a start! Wtfiv (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I was clearly half asleep...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude no worries! (t · c) buidhe 20:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, you thanked me for my edit here, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Need_help_to_finish_requests but I don't really understand what you did mean by it, please explain so I understand, Thanks.
You are very experienced in this field so do you have any suggestions what I should do to get the requests completed. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Goran tek-en I appreciate your diligence in trying to get these maps finished but unfortunately, I'm not in a position to help. (t · c) buidhe 16:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I tagged 2021 Algerian-Moroccan diplomatic crisis for speedy deletion as it was created by a highly disruptive editor (a confirmed sock of D4rkeRR9). This will give you a really good idea about what their intentions are. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

M.Bitton Thanks, I'm not familiar with that sock. (t · c) buidhe 22:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello Buidhe. I'd like to request your expert advice again, if possible. Does this image of a play-by-mail game title meet the requirements for PD-text? I wasn't sure if the "unoriginal information" part of PD-text applied. My best guess is no and it's OK since this image of another play-by-mail game image also has the game title in it but met PD-text.

That raises another question though. The uploader asked if a free image couldn't be used as a replacement. I said no since this shows how the publishers displayed it in a magazine in 1984 and also I don't know what fonts they used. But (1) are there web-based tools to tell what fonts these are, and (2) would re-creating the image be advisable for use on Wikipedia? Personally, I think the original image from 1984 shows how the game has changed from a play-by-mail game in an earlier era to a play-by-web game today, but wondering what is possible as well. Appreciate your time! --Airborne84 (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Airborne84 I believe the first image should be ok for PD-text because it's just a few words in a typeface. Free image as replacement only applies for non-free images so wouldn't be relevant in this case. I do not know how to figure out what fonts are used, sorry. (t · c) buidhe 18:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, greatly appreciated! --Airborne84 (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	For being a mentor and supporting me during my early days of new page reviewing. Celestina007 (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, you were the technical guru who created {{User:UBX/Independent Order of Odd Fellows}} this for me right? Can you be a darling and create a userbox that says “this user has been threatened with sorcery” ? Lmao, Buidhe, I swear I’m not even goofing around see this which was the inspiration for WP:NOSORCERY written by Herpetogenesis, forgive the digression, can you create that userbox for me? I’d be grateful. Celestina007 (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007 Here you go: User:UBX/threatened by sorcery it did not require genius intellect :) :) I bet it was easier that actually using sorcery against a Wikipedia editor (t · c) buidhe 19:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

You’re such a darling, lol anyone who is great at coding, writing scripts and other core technicalities is a genius to me. :) Celestina007 (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Since you created the IOOF userbox for me, I think it’s only fair to let you know that joining was a serious let down (per my expectations) I was hoping it was a form of Freemasonry, but nahh all we do here is donate to charity(a very noble cause) but I was thinking there was something mystical about the organization but nahh there isn’t. 😂 . Celestina007 (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Oíche mhaith, Buidhe. I was having a look through the list of outstanding DYK noms to review one for a QPQ and noticed you have one that has stalled for a while with some thorny issues—I'm not familiar with the subject and have no ties or interest there so if you want a fresh set of eyes at the article/nomination I should be able to carve some time out on Monday to look it over. Let me know if you're happy enough to have a second (?) opinion there. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Grapple X. I have recently made edits to the article to increase sourcing quality. Of course I'm not sure if they will be reverted tomorrow so I'd advise you to check the article history. (t · c) buidhe 01:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

On 22 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pushback (migration), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that pushbacks of migrants in the Aegean Sea have been described as "a human rights violation that encapsulates a will to eliminate a person's presence on the face of the planet"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pushback (migration). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Pushback (migration)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 5,160 views (430 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of November 2021 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

		The Human Rights Barnstar
		For your work at article Pushbacks in Greece. Cinadon36 07:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

When you closed this Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 50#Requested move 11 February 2021 discussion you referred to MOS:CAPS and WP:MILMOS those cover article content style not article titles. For the latter you should refer to WP:AT (section WP:TITLEFORMAT) and its explanitory guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). In this case it would make no difference to the close, but it is better to stick to the policy and the naming conventions, because the policy follows the sources while the MOS is more proscriptive. — PBS (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

PBS, my understanding is that WP:AT in the section you link states "words [in article titles] are not capitalized unless they would be so in running text" and whether they would be capitalized in running text is something that's determined by MOS:CAPS. I could be wrong but I see all three pages as relevant for article title capitalization. (t · c) buidhe 20:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, what I had "copied" was not the complete sentence word by word, but the facts (record high and total revenue). How would you suggest to present these without alarming anyone? As it stands, you have removed significant information without offering any significant help. I reintroduced the bare facts together with the most relevant ref. May I ask you to review again and remove the copyvio tag, please. -- Kku (talk) 07:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kku, it's essential to change the wording so it's different from the source—otherwise you run afoul of copyvio or close paraphrasing. Thanks to your rewrite, the current article version won't need to be changed but the previous revisions are subject to revision deletion. An admin will delete previous revisions but leave the current one. (t · c) buidhe 07:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the first version. This was more than a stub and used non-US spellings. But I'm not going to precious over it. Red Jay (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I guess I don't see the point of changing an article's spelling when it's been stable for 2+ years. (t · c) buidhe 11:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced the tag on that Braves/Plains Warfare RM, thanks for fixing it. Honestly could also have done a snow-close FOARP (talk) 11:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for closing up Ham House. I know it will be much appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome! (t · c) buidhe 22:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated Great Fire of London for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Renerpho (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The article David Ochoa (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:2DABS). Primary topic has hatnote to only other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

On 30 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pushbacks in Greece, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Frontex's role in pushbacks of migrants in Greece has led to investigations by the European Parliament, EU Ombudsman, and EU anti-fraud agency? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pushbacks in Greece. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Pushbacks in Greece), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi thanks for coordinating the November NPP backlog drive. I use Twinkle for deletions, so they are not showing up in the backlog drive leaderboard. I have worked exclusively on the new pages queue this month, so all of the deletions below relate to articles found in the queue.

• PRODs – 2, one deleted and the other redirected
• SD nominations – 51, mostly deleted, a few not.
• AfDs – my log shows 30 nominations – of those already closed, all have been deleted. However three of these nominations are bundled:

• Karate at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional is a bundle of eight
• 2017 Cadet, Junior and U21 Karate World Championship is a bundle of ten
• Western Iraq is a bundle of five.

This gives a total of 51 AFDs from NPP in November.

All the best Mccapra (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I thought I'd let you know about some important information regarding a recent move request you closed at Undocumented immigrant population of the United States. While the !votes at this discussion were overwhelmingly in favor of the move, this appears to be a case of pure turnout because there is still significant pushback against using this term. Several discussions in recent history (for example, here (note that all respondents from this discussion were pinged; I was the only one who opposed the move who responded) and here; there are others) find significant opposition to the use of "undocumented immigrant" on the argument that it is a wp:EUPHEMISM, and is not neutral, as well as that it is not currently (yet) the common name. I'm not disputing your actions here, I'm just letting you know that while the move you you recently closed may give the appearance of consensus on the usage of these terms, other discussions suggest otherwise. Bneu2013 (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bneu2013, although you're correct that moves are decided based on arguments, not headcount, I don't think it would be possible to close the move any other way given that no one else who participated in the discussion that I closed agreed with your conclusion that "undocumented" is euphemistic. Even in the other move discussion that you link, there are multiple editors arguing for the use of "undocumented immigrants" without moving the "illegal immigration" articles. This move request is a logical follow-up to that one. I suggest you go to Move review if you want to overturn the move. (t · c) buidhe 01:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to appeal it. Move review is an absolute joke. The second discussion I linked lists significant opposition to the use of the word "undocumented" in all contexts, however, and there are plenty of others. I expect this issue will come up again in the future. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to know how you were satisfied that it wasn't an honorific and was neutral when past moves and move reviews considered otherwise? Or did you think usage was enough to overcome WP:NPOVNAME? Hemanthah (talk) 08:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Hemanthah, there seems to be consensus in the discussion that the usage was sufficient to outweigh concerns about POVNAME. (t · c) buidhe 08:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I saw repeated assertions of common usage in the discussion but nobody explained why so many reliable sources (g-books g-newspapers) continue to use his given name instead of just Sadhguru, if that was so common. It'd be helpful to know which argument convinced you that it was so overwhelmingly common as to overcome neutrality. Hemanthah (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hemanthah, it's not a question of one argument that convinced me as I have to look at the entire discussion. For a popular figure like Sadhguru/Jaggi Vasudev, your argument that many sources use his given name isn't convincing unless you are comparing that to the number of sources that use the nickname. For example the Google Books search suggest that the sources that label him "Jaggi Vasudev" also use the appellation Sadhguru, while the sources that call him Sadhguru don't often use the given name. (t · c) buidhe 09:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

That's the thing though. If my argument isn't convincing, how is the claim 'Sadhguru is most common' convincing; especially when comparison wasn't even attempted in the discussion (apart from a single dubious Google fight)? Here are books which don't use Sadhguru at all. On a WP:BLP page, shouldn't it be unambiguously clear? Hemanthah (talk) 10:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any special rules for article titles of BLP subjects. The first sentence identifies the subject without any doubt. (t · c) buidhe 10:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for organising this. Just four articles (the rest were user pages) to be added from my November Twinkle CSD log. Have a great day JW 1961 ^Talk 08:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Following on from your message, I made 41 non-redirect mainspace CSD nominations in November. My log can be found at User:Sdrqaz/CSDs. Thank you for your work in this drive. Sdrqaz (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Buidhe, for you effort in organising the NPP backlog drive. My CSD log (User:Modussiccandi/CSD log) has eight entries for the month of November. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I have started an individual good article reassessment of Photovoltaic power station which was rated "good" in 2013 and I think it needs modernizing. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Bonsoir,
See the works of Hans Mommsen > https://www.jstor.org/stable/25681003 Prophecy like Prophétie in french are "démesurés" (Please excuse my poor english) Thank you Mike Coppolano (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mike Coppolano, the question of whether in 1939 Hitler was predicting in advance the Final Solution (Mommsen argues that he was not) is separate from the question of what this utterance is called. If you read the article, even Mommsen uses the word "prophecy" to describe it, calling it a "macabre prophecy". (t · c) buidhe 17:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I want to inform you that I had to remove this inappropriate talk page section, (and as side effect, your reply to it along with it): [6] The IP grossly violated Wikipedia's rules and such a thing cannot remain on the talk page - let alone on any talk pages across Wikipedia. Hope you don't mind. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 03:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

No objection. (t · c) buidhe 03:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate you starting that FAR on Uncle Tom's Cabin. I hadn't seen the comments on the talk page about improving the article before now and hadn't realized the article needed so much work.

Also, I posted a bunch of new reviews and coverage on Bart Plantenga in response to your vote to delete. Please check it out and let me know what you think. I actually went into the AfDs for the Plantenga article and a related one, on Ron Kolm, thinking I'd also go with delete. But when I researched both subjects I saw enough coverage to convince me they were notable. Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe. I'm about to nominate September 2019 events in the U.S. repo market as a FAC. Would you have the time to review this image? It would be incredibly helpful. JBchrch talk 18:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

JBchrch What you mean by review? The website claims copyright so I'll assume that it's not covered by US federal government public domain, but it still should be ok under PD-chart. (t · c) buidhe 19:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Basically I was just seeking some external validation for my copyright rationale. I was unaware of PD-chart, and will now add it to the Commons page. Thanks a lot! JBchrch talk 19:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)